Jump to content


Heavy Tank 6....


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

k1ller_120 #1 Posted 12 June 2017 - 02:32 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 8771 battles
  • 136
  • Member since:
    02-26-2015

It's REALLY annoying that I get ammo rack damaged by any tank. I have safe stowage and 100% and I still get hit. It's frustrating!!! I get hit in the front, ammo hit, side ammo hit. 

 

FIX THE TANK FFS! 

 

 



qpranger #2 Posted 12 June 2017 - 02:49 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 32524 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

Drive around with no ammo and just ram your enemies.

Perfect modus operandi for a Japanese WW2 vehicle.



Browarszky #3 Posted 12 June 2017 - 03:05 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 16096 battles
  • 3,737
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013
Apparently all Japanese tanks are also equipped with early versions of maglev technology. At least I can't think of any other reason how monsters like Type 5 could have been deployed in any area of Japanese operations.

magkiln #4 Posted 12 June 2017 - 04:55 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 24179 battles
  • 751
  • [EKKE] EKKE
  • Member since:
    09-21-2015

View PostBrowarszky, on 12 June 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

Apparently all Japanese tanks are also equipped with early versions of maglev technology. At least I can't think of any other reason how monsters like Type 5 could have been deployed in any area of Japanese operations.

 

Which they weren't, because none of these things actually existed. Most weren't even blue prints. Just a sketch on the back of a beer coaster. Good new sfor WG who get to make thinsg up without even having to pretend that they are historically accurate.

Isharial #5 Posted 12 June 2017 - 04:59 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 19826 battles
  • 2,352
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View Postmagkiln, on 12 June 2017 - 04:55 PM, said:

 

Which they weren't, because none of these things actually existed. Most weren't even blue prints. Just a sketch on the back of a beer coaster. Good new sfor WG who get to make thinsg up without even having to pretend that they are historically accurate.

 

actually the O-I existed as a prototype, the EXP didn't, the TYPE4/5 *may* have existed, there is a pic of the turret mounted as a bunker, it may be fake, or it may have existed and failed as a prototype, and the made turret used for the bunker, we may never know on that one..

but the O-I did exist, with the 15cm gun, which is portrayed correctly

that said, barely any tank in wot is "historically accurate" so that's not really an argument against them...

 

EDIT: and on topic, tried wet ammo rack? it might help, or perhaps learn where the enemy are hitting you, so you can try to expose that postion less to minimise your ammo rack problem... just a thought


 


Edited by Isharial, 12 June 2017 - 05:01 PM.


Uebergewicht #6 Posted 12 June 2017 - 05:08 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11702 battles
  • 1,062
  • Member since:
    11-15-2015
From what I heared, the OI existed, but was so incredibly heavy that the tracks would just dig them into the ground instead of propelling them anywhere. Which seems reasonable with a tank of that mass.

magkiln #7 Posted 12 June 2017 - 06:43 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 24179 battles
  • 751
  • [EKKE] EKKE
  • Member since:
    09-21-2015

View PostIsharial, on 12 June 2017 - 04:59 PM, said:

 

actually the O-I existed as a prototype, the EXP didn't, the TYPE4/5 *may* have existed, there is a pic of the turret mounted as a bunker, it may be fake, or it may have existed and failed as a prototype, and the made turret used for the bunker, we may never know on that one..

but the O-I did exist, with the 15cm gun, which is portrayed correctly

that said, barely any tank in wot is "historically accurate" so that's not really an argument against them...

 

Well, they found the OI's tracks in a destroyed assembly hall. There is no certainty how much of the tank ever existed. Considering the Japanese' industry'es problems with producing high powered engines in those days I'm not sure if it was more than aemptyty shell. As for the Type 4/5, I have seen that photo. I thought most people agreed it's a hoax.

Nishi_Kinuyo #8 Posted 12 June 2017 - 07:30 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 7725 battles
  • 4,142
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View PostBrowarszky, on 12 June 2017 - 02:05 PM, said:

Apparently all Japanese tanks are also equipped with early versions of maglev technology. At least I can't think of any other reason how monsters like Type 5 could have been deployed in any area of Japanese operations.

Same maglev as Maus or E-100 afaik.

The Japanese Heavies were intended for use in Korea, Manchukuo and Mongolia.

 

As for Tiger's ammorack problem; its a Tiger, eel with it.

Ammorack locations X-Ray

#GermanPrecisionEngineering

 

magkiln

 As for the Type 4/5, I have seen that photo. I thought most people agreed it's a hoax.

 Except for people who, you know, saw the physical photo in real life.


Edited by Nishi_Kinuyo, 12 June 2017 - 07:31 PM.


250swb #9 Posted 12 June 2017 - 10:12 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 22676 battles
  • 5,071
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

View Postk1ller_120, on 12 June 2017 - 02:32 PM, said:

It's REALLY annoying that I get ammo rack damaged by any tank. I have safe stowage and 100% and I still get hit. It's frustrating!!! I get hit in the front, ammo hit, side ammo hit. 

 

FIX THE TANK FFS! 

 

 

 

You have a 55% WR with it so what the [edited]are you whining about?

k1ller_120 #10 Posted 12 June 2017 - 10:14 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 8771 battles
  • 136
  • Member since:
    02-26-2015

View Post250swb, on 12 June 2017 - 10:12 PM, said:

 

You have a 55% WR with it so what the [edited]are you whining about?

 

I'm "whining" about the fact that it can be easily ammo racked even by small to medium caliber guns... What does my WR have to do anything with this topic? 



Alex_Connor #11 Posted 12 June 2017 - 11:44 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 16272 battles
  • 213
  • Member since:
    11-29-2012

When sidescraping, do not over-angle the Tiger/HT No.VI, most of the upper side hull is ammo rack.

 

HT06-1.png

 

You may get penned if they hit the frontal plate here, but you cannot be ammoracked because the side is at an autobounce angle.

 

If you wish to angle the front aggressively round a corner or hill (a viable tactic with the HT No.VI against lower pen guns like US 76mm and Russian 85mm), take care not to expose too much of the side.

 

HT06-2.png

 

From this position you cannot be ammoracked. Even better, this angle offers between 135mm and 155mm effective frontal plate (and the lower plate/mantlet are better than that), with a little movement to throw off aim you will bounce tier 5/6 enemies most of the time and even some t7 shots.

 

 

 



WindSplitter1 #12 Posted 13 June 2017 - 12:15 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 16025 battles
  • 2,560
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View Postk1ller_120, on 12 June 2017 - 01:32 PM, said:

It's REALLY annoying that I get ammo rack damaged by any tank. I have safe stowage and 100% and I still get hit. It's frustrating!!! I get hit in the front, ammo hit, side ammo hit. 

 

FIX THE TANK FFS! 

 

 

Arigato gozaimasu for the pic, Nishi Kinuyo.

 

At the start of a match in Steppes, I got a Full HP ammorack from an M44 HEAT shell. Ofc my reactions was no less than #RageUninstall :izmena:



_Anarchistic_ #13 Posted 13 June 2017 - 03:43 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 39048 battles
  • 1,081
  • Member since:
    01-07-2015

I do find it a bit irritating when low alpha tanks, eg bulldog can pen, do damage and ammo rack when their hp damage less than the ammo rack hp, but I guess that's the game.  don't suppose it takes much to set off an ammo rack in real life, as Wittman found out

 



Spurtung #14 Posted 13 June 2017 - 03:49 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 63824 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View Postmagkiln, on 12 June 2017 - 05:55 PM, said:

View PostBrowarszky, on 12 June 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

Apparently all Japanese tanks are also equipped with early versions of maglev technology. At least I can't think of any other reason how monsters like Type 5 could have been deployed in any area of Japanese operations.

 

Which they weren't, because none of these things actually existed. Most weren't even blue prints. Just a sketch on the back of a beer coaster. Good new sfor WG who get to make thinsg up without even having to pretend that they are historically accurate.

But their research department...they dig deep into the archives...they lied?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users